Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40087702›Full record

ArticlePatient safety in surgery2025

Enhancing the quality of surgical care through improved patient handover processes.

Jessica M Ryan, Deborah A McNamara

Abstract readLetter
In one paragraph

Article in Patient safety in surgery, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Jessica M RyanRCSI StAR PhD Programme, School of Postgraduate Studies, 123 St. Stephen's Green, Co, Dublin, Ireland. jessicaryan@rcsi.com.
Deborah A McNamaraOffice of the President, RCSI, 123 St. Stephen's Green, Co Dublin, Ireland.

Funding

Bon Secours Hospital, Dublin 22253A02Medical Protection Society Foundation 23017A02
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Surgical handover remains a high-risk process with no gold standard for practice despite 20 years of available guidance. Variability in practice is common, and poorly performed handover poses significant, yet avoidable, risk to patients. Research in this domain is underfunded with widely heterogenous methodology, meaning that the evidence base for better handover is deficient. In this correspondence, recommendations are made to address these shortcomings, including standardised operating procedures supported by electronic health records to enable staff training and audit. Prioritisation of the sickest patients at the handover outset and two-way, verbal communication, including a "read-back" to confirm that information is both transmitted and received. Rigorous evaluation of handover interventions before use, and discontinuation of practices that add no value. Lastly, a core outcome set for surgical handover is urgently needed to improve the comparability of studies. By clearly defining best practices and demonstrating the impact of interventions on patient outcomes, surgeons will be more inclined to adopt meaningful improvements in handover processes.

Indexed as

Continuity of careCore outcome setHandoverHealthcare improvementImplementationQuality

Identifiers

PMID40087702
PMCPMC11909930

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.